There is a fundamental problem with this discussion. Those who actually work in the field of cyber-war (if it exists ;) can't comment, or can only comment in a vague way or one which disinforms. At least in this country and probably the others.
Those who can and do comment generally have no actual 1st hand experience with cyber-war, and so really don't know what they are talking about (more or less). But if one were to guess, perhaps the cyber "weapon" is a component to a larger layered attack and that the existence of stuxnet doesn't indicate a singular event but a hint at something larger we really know nothing about. Kinda reminds me of blackhats and the rest of the worlds semi-lack of knowledge about them, with the occasional hint (zf0, h0n0, pr0j3ktm3yh3m, etc.) V. Who is the cyber-von-clauswitz ? On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 13:48 -0400, Ron Gula wrote: > I'm not sure I agree. Technically, sure, you can hack into things and > take them out. However, comparing hacking to a cruise missile is a > stretch. I can patch my systems today and your cyber-attack tomorrow is > foiled. Or maybe I switch from Mac to Windows. A Tomahawk cruise missile > is just as effective against a Russian radar system or a French one. > > Don't get me wrong - hacking, backdoors, denial of service, altering > messages, decrypting sensitive messages .etc all have their place. I > just think the categories are cyber intelligence, terrorism, espionage, > sabotage or crime but not "warfare". > > We've been doing intel, terror, spying, sabotage and crime for a long > time and the tools have just changed with the introduction of > hyper-connected computers and targets. > > -- Ron Gula, CEO Tenable Network Security http://www.tenable.com > > On 3/20/2011 10:52 PM, greg hoglund wrote: > > > I agree with you Dave. Cyberwar is technical. Granted, like any war, > > > it must be backed by intel and psyops. But, like any war, the kills > > > people see in the press are kinetic. Cruise missiles are technical, > > > and kinetic. But, everything is backed by intel. Even missiles. In > > > cyber, the importance of HUMINT far outweighs that of kinetic damage. > > > The technology is new and different, but the classic principle > > > applies. This war is not new. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 20, 2011, Dave Aitel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Paper Review > >> >> Cyberwar as a Confidence Game > >> >> Martin C. Libicki > >> >> http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2011/spring/libicki.pdf > >> >> > >> >> Here's the last line, which sums it up nicely: > >> >> """ > >> >> Building up our offensive > >> >> capabilities is a confidence game. It says to those who would > compete in > >> >> our league: are you confident enough in your cyberwar skills that > you can > >> >> build your military to rely on information systems and the > machines that > >> >> take their orders? > >> >> """ > >> >> > >> >> One thing missing from this paper is any evidence that this kind of > >> >> logic (aka, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in military information systems > >> >> as applied to network centric warfare) has any real-world effect. > >> >> Militaries (including our own) simply don't take these things into > >> >> account when deploying new systems. > >> >> > >> >> But the main anomaly in the paper is simple: He treats Stuxnet as an > >> >> aberration, rather than the tip of the iceberg that finally made the > >> >> newspapers. And this leads him (and most other strategic analysts) to > >> >> conclude that hacking does not have real world effects. I have to > >> >> assume this is the WWII legacy of Enigma - where in order to take > >> >> advantage of intelligence you had to go out and order your sub killers > >> >> to go sink a boat. But just because hacking is tied to intelligence > >> >> bodies in most countries, and staffed with people who look and act a > >> >> lot like intelligence officers, does not make it the same thing. > >> >> Hacking is as kinetic as a cruise missile when you do it right. > >> >> > >> >> -dave > >> >> (This is a first in a series of posts where-in we all get to review > >> >> the Strategic Studies Quarterly's Spring Cyber-War papers - > >> >> http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/ ). > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Dailydave mailing list > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave > >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dailydave mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
